Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Los Angeles is almost double the size of Chicago, buts it's not there yet. I'm not going to sit here and do the math for you, but you can clearly tell from a numbers standpoint that L.A isn't twice as big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
But LA has BY FAR the largest manufacturing base in the U.S.
The rust belt is the largest base for manufacturing. L.A does have a lot of manufacturing, but its not bigger than cities of the rust belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Nobody cares that Chicago has lots of trucks passing through its suburbs. It's the center of the Rust Belt, with lots of smoky, declining industries requiring shipping.
You should care that those trucks pass through Chicagoland. They keep the price of goods low. Imagine flying those goods from coast to coast? A grape would cost you five dollars. Chicago isn't even close to being the center of the rust belt. If you want to throw Chicago into the rust belt, you have to do the same for NYC. They were hit pretty hard by the collapse of the textile industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Chicago has a tiny financial sector. It's known for one middling exchange, which will likely soon leave.
Almost every major multinational corporation on this planet uses hedging strategies to cut costs and to maintain pricing stability. For example, airlines enter into oil forward/future contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in order to lock in certain costs. This allows them to ensure certain profit margins and avoid exposure to volatile prices in oil markets.
All of this is done by Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
I doubt there are even 2,000 employees working at the exchange. And Chcago has no investment banking to speak of.
Chicago's role isn't in investment banking as is New York's. Imagine if this nation had two cities battling for investments. We need to have city that plays a role in investment and one that plays a role in commodities. We need to be balanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Heck, I bet you there are more private equity firms in LA than in Chicago.
Hopefully you aren't a betting man, because you'd loose a lot of money on that one pretty quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
LA is the largest entertainment center on earth. It probably has a half million people working in entertainment industries.
It doesn't. Bollywood is actually the largest entertainment center on the planet. It's located in Mumbai, India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Because it's surrounded by beautiful mountains. Chicago is surrounded by corn and large, unattractive people.
The landscaping may not be as beautiful as California's coast, but I'll bet money I look better than you any day .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Chicago is much more polluted, however. Only Phoenix is more polluted than Chicago.
Still making this crazy claim? You cant come up with a shred of evidence, yet you continue to say this. You've been proven wrong by many posters before me. Give up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
This is why LA has FAR more multifamily units than Chicago.
LOL! Then how is Chicago more dense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Chicago is the capital of the single family home. Its one-floor suburban bungalows dominate.
Bungalows have a second story and a full basement. Your argument just doesn't make sense. You're saying, indirectly, Chicago has more single family homes, but its over density is higher. L.A has more multifamily homes, but its overall density is lower. Explain to me how this make sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Chicago has a higher proportion of residents with vehicles, yet is a much poorer city, meaning people are forced to drive, even if they're flat broke.
Someone literally just proved you wrong on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
LA's bus system has FAR more passengers. Check out the APTA numbers.
Neither city has high rail ridership.
LOL, this is why LA has modern transit lines, and Chicago transit lines are rusted and falling down.
Chicago's one of the top cities in the nation for rail ridership, and L.A obviously has more bus passengers, the region is supported entirely on roads. That's why its always ranked as THE MOST POLLUTED CITY IN AMERICA
Chicago's transit lines are very well taken care of. You clearly have 0 idea what you're talking about, but I'm sure everyone has known this since the day you joined.
Los Angeles is almost double the size of Chicago, buts it's not there yet. I'm not going to sit here and do the math for you, but you can clearly tell from a numbers standpoint that L.A isn't twice as big.
The rust belt is the largest base for manufacturing. L.A does have a lot of manufacturing, but its not bigger than cities of the rust belt.
You should care that those trucks pass through Chicagoland. They keep the price of goods low. Imagine flying those goods from coast to coast? A grape would cost you five dollars. Chicago isn't even close to being the center of the rust belt. If you want to throw Chicago into the rust belt, you have to do the same for NYC. They were hit pretty hard by the collapse of the textile industry.
Almost every major multinational corporation on this planet uses hedging strategies to cut costs and to maintain pricing stability. For example, airlines enter into oil forward/future contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in order to lock in certain costs. This allows them to ensure certain profit margins and avoid exposure to volatile prices in oil markets.
All of this is done by Chicago.
Chicago's role isn't in investment banking as is New York's. Imagine if this nation had two cities battling for investments. We need to have city that plays a role in investment and one that plays a role in commodities. We need to be balanced.
Hopefully you aren't a betting man, because you'd loose a lot of money on that one pretty quickly.
It doesn't. Bollywood is actually the largest entertainment center on the planet. It's located in Mumbai, India.
The landscaping may not be as beautiful as California's coast, but I'll bet money I look better than you any day .
Still making this crazy claim? You cant come up with a shred of evidence, yet you continue to say this. You've been proven wrong by many posters before me. Give up.
LOL! Then how is Chicago more dense?
Bungalows have a second story and a full basement. Your argument just doesn't make sense. You're saying, indirectly, Chicago has more single family homes, but its over density is higher. L.A has more multifamily homes, but its overall density is lower. Explain to me how this make sense?
Someone literally just proved you wrong on this.
Chicago's one of the top cities in the nation for rail ridership, and L.A obviously has more bus passengers, the region is supported entirely on roads. That's why its always ranked as THE MOST POLLUTED CITY IN AMERICA
Chicago's transit lines are very well taken care of. You clearly have 0 idea what you're talking about, but I'm sure everyone has known this since the day you joined.
Troll!
About manufacturing.
Los Angeles does have the largest manufacturing gross product of any US Metro.
US MSAs by Manufacturing Gross Product, $20B+
Los Angeles $64.8 Billion
New York $58.7 Billion
Chicago $54.9 Billion
Houston $51.0 Billion
Dallas $43.6 Billion
Detroit $29.2 Billion
San Francisco $28.3 Billion
San Jose $25.3 Billion
Boston $24.3 Billion
Minneapolis $22.2 Billion
Portland $21.0 Billion
So much for rusted and falling down, Chicago's CTA is the 2nd most extensive transportation system in the US LOL.
FALSE
Washington, DC has the second most extensive rail.
LA has the second most extensive bus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
Ridership? According to the transit agencies' sites, theres 1.7 million trips on the CTA and another 300,000 on the Metra. That's 2 million trips daily...again ranks 2nd in US and 4th in North America.
FALSE
Even excepting NYC, and looking just at Canada and Mexico, Chicago cannot be any better than 7th, because it has lower ridership than Toronto, Montreal, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Puebla.
I don't know stats for Central American or Carribean systems, but given the fact that all these areas are poor and have very low car ownership, I find it hard to believe that Chicago has higher ridership than Havana, Managua, Panama City, etc.
And domestically, Chicago is behind LA and Washington, DC.
So I find it VERY hard to believe Chicago is Top 10 in North America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
Los Angeles ranks behind Philadelphia's and Boston's tranist systems lol. The facts are very easy to find. ANY site will tell you.
FALSE
ANY site? How about the American Public Transit Association? Looks like you are lying!
Total ridership 1Q 2009- (January-March 2009)
Los Angeles- 92,324,400
Chicago- 77,720,300
Philly- 42,063,100
Boston- 25,830,300
Los Angeles has the most extensive freeway system in the world. A simple look at a map justifies this.
FALSE.
Kansas City has the most freeway miles per capita. And Chicago has FAR more freeway miles per capita than LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
Not only that, Los Angeles has wider highways too....you know, West Coast style.
FALSE
LA actually has narrow freeways. Nothing like Chicago's gigantic Dan Ryan. Stevenson, Kennedy, Skyway, etc.
In fact. the freeways all NARROW when one enters LA from Orange County! You have obviously never driven in Southern CA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
As fars as car goes, Los Angeles is notoriously known for its traffic and heavy usage of cars.
Yes, but stereotypes aren't always true. LA is a national transit model, and Chicago is much more car-dependent in 2009.
The rest of your posting is just illogical rantings (hey! a random website from my Google search said LA was "city of the car", therefore it must be true and must imply a confirmation of some sort of comparative transit shortcoming vs. Chicago, even though Chicago is never mentioned; yeah, that's it! )
LOL! You're evidence is Forbes' list for the most stressful cities. That list has no psychiatric proof. Haha you're so trolling right now. You're such a bad troll, you cant even determine which "source" to use to try and make Chicago look more polluted then L.A! Oh lord, how far City-Data trolls have fallen.
Yes, I am using Forbes annual rankings, which uses EPA pollution data!
Most polluted US cities By short-term particle pollution) 1. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2. Fresno, California
3. Bakersfield, California
4. Los Angeles, California.
5. Birmingham, Alabama
6. Salt Lake City, Utah
7. Sacramento, California
8. Logan, Utah
9. Chicago, Illinois
9. Detroit, Michigan
Most polluted US cities (By ozone pollution) 1. Los Angeles, California
2. Bakersfield, California
3. Visalia, California
4. Fresno, California
5. Houston, Texas
6. Sacramento, California.
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
8. Charlotte, North Carolina
9. Phoenix, Arizona
10. El Centro, California
Most polluted US cities (By year-round particle pollution)
1. Bakersfield, California
2. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
3. Los Angeles, California
4. Visalia, California
5. Birmingham, Alabama
6. Hanford, California
7. Fresno, California
8. Cincinnati, Ohio
9. Detroit, Michigan
10. Cleveland, Ohio
Are you arguing for bus only, or total transit numbers?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
)
